Thanks to Hugh for his excellent statement.

Ferenc

  on Sun Jan 26 19:09:43 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #896:

>At 05:03 PM 1/26/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:
>
>>Please re-read my posts.  You will not find any that libels homosexuals.
 As
>>I have stated before, I have no hate or fear, or guilt towards non-natural
>>(or "alternative"lifestiles.  I merely have an aversion to the idea, to
which
>>I believe I have a right.  By the way, I don't hate blind people either; I
>>just don't think that theirs is a normal condition.
>
>        So, you have an "aversion" to blind people also?
>
>        Eva Balogh

Please, Eva, get a life.  You are nit-picking.  For the record, the answer to
your question is, of course, no.  In my opinion, any given set of people
(blind, blond, black, tall, lame, bald, white, short, homosexual
heterosexual, red, fat, eunuch, etc., take your pick) includes all types and
may or may not be appealing to someone.  Any of these sets may include
individuals with whom I may find common ground on some topics.  My stated
aversion is towards non-natural ("alternative") lifestiles.

Ferenc

 on Sun Jan 26 20:49:20 EST 1997 in HUNGARY
#896:

>At 02:37 AM 1/24/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
><snip>
>>What is this about "you all"?  Speaking for me personally, I have no
>>feelings of guilt, fear or shame or hatred, for that matter.  I just find
>>homosexuality disgusting.  Please don't take it personally.  I believe we
>>should still be able to maintain a civilized discourse on other, more
>>important topics.
>
>You want to suppress discussion of homosexuality and talk about more
>"important" topics.  This is suppression.

I don't think so.  This list is supposed to be there for the discussion of
topics of Hungarian interest.  Homosexuality in Hungary might be a more
suitable topic, if you care to start such a discussion.  I would not object
to it.

>>Can't we just practice "don't ask, don't tell" as in the (US) army?
>>
>>Ferenc
>
>"Don't ask, don't tell" may very well be the American army's policy toward
>gays, but it is also suppression of homosexuality.

Let's just agree to disagree here, Joe.
>
>For your contrition I strongly recommend that you visit MA'SOK, the
>Hungarian Gay page, and learn something about homosexuals.  Their address
>is:    http://www.datanet.hu/masok/
>
>Joe Szalai

Thanks, but I pass.

Ferenc

 on Jan 27 20:54:29 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #897:

>Dear Jeliko, you wrote:

                <snip>

>>"After two centuries the monarchy had finally vanquished the Turks. Now it
>>remained to Leopold to subdue his own Hungarian subjects. By the spring of
>>1687 the progress of the reconquest had emboldened the emperor and his
>>Austrian and Bohemian counselors to institute constitutional changes that
>>would bring the kingdom more in line with the rest of the monarchy."
>
>        What is wrong from the point of view of a ruler to try to bring some
>uniformity into his realm?

>From his point of view, nothing.  But then, following your line of reasoning
you can also ask, what was wrong from Hitler's or Stalin's point of view of
what they were doing?

>>"When it convened in October at Pressburg, he reiterated his intention of
>>honoring the his oath to uphold the constitution and the kingdom's
>>liberties, including the the diets right to vote taxes, the nobility's
>>control over local government, and the people's religious freedom. In
>>exchange he sought only two constitutional changes. The diet readily agreed
>>to abolish formally its right to elect kings and to accept a hereditary
>>succession, an innovation that it confirmed by recognizing his son, Joseph
>as heir and his coronation as king. The diet also agreed to repeal the jus
>>resistendi,
>>albeit with some reluctance and only after repeated promises of religious
>>freedom."
>
>        What is wrong with this? Do you think that the Hungarian
>constitutional practice of election of the king was a good idea? Look what
>happened to Poland!!

Since you like to complain about the lack of democratic practices in Hungary,
I would have expected you to come down on the side of elected monarchy, as
opposed to accepting a foreign monarchy.

>And what is wrong with repeal of the jus resistendi
>which basically meant that every time a bunch of nobles decided that the
>king trampled on their privileges, they could take up arms and fight him. A
>sure way of bringing chaos to the country and invite foreign intervention.
>Again, see Poland!

Why not England, whose Magna Charta, issued just seven years before the
Golden Bull containing the ius resistendi?  Should that, too, have been
repealed?  How about habeus corpus, which can also be invoked every time a
bunch of criminals decide that their rights are trampled on ;-)

>>"A notorious example had already surfaced in the months prior to the
>>Pressburg diet, when Hungary's new military governor, Count Antonio Caraffa
>>interpreted idle gossip of some camp followers in the town of Eperjes as
>>evidence of another plot against Habsburg rule. Although Leopold instructed
>>Caraffa to abide by the kingdom's laws and a recently promulagetd amnesty,
>>he empowered him to establish a tribunal there to investigate and punish
any
>>treasonous activity. Over a six months period seventeen prominent burghers,
>>and nobles were tortured into confessing groundless charges. In short
order,
>>the unfortunate victims had their right arms cut off, were decapitated,
>>drawn and quartered, and finally had their remnants hanged from the city
>>gate. By August the Palatine Esterhazy and other magnates had prevailed on
>>Leopold to discontinue the so-called slaughterhouse of Eperjes and
>>eventually secured Caraffa's transfer to another position."
>
>        I am not quite sure what to do this. These kinds of atrocities have
>occurred right and left everywhere to our day.

I have a feeling that you would not dismiss such atrocities in so cavalier a
fashion if they had been committed by Hungarians.

Ferenc

Quotations - out of context - from the scientific debate of Ferenc Novak and Jo
e
Szalai. Forgive for my not covering the subkect SURPRESSION:
>
>I don't think so.  This list is supposed to be there for the discussion of
>topics of Hungarian interest.  Homosexuality in Hungary might be a more
>suitable topic, if you care to start such a discussion.  I would not object
>to it.
>

Gals, guys and gays,

I am afraid, the discussion of Ferenc and Joe is getting just boring..
>
>Let's just agree to disagree here, Joe.
>
So why don4t you leave at that...?

Peace be with you alllll...
Miklos

At 18:18 27-01-1997 -0500, you wrote:
>Several times, in the past, I was accused of a "baseless" anti-Habsburg
>bias. Rather than getting into explanations of my opinions derived from
>numerous sources, I am going to present some quotes from others who are
>"known" historians with publications on the relevant field. These will be in
>segments, so as not to overwhelm the subject. The first excerpts are from
>Charles Ingrao "The Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815" Cambridge University Press,
>1994.
>
>
>Regards,Jeliko
>The non-historian.


Thanks for the posting. Very interesting stuff.

Doug Holmes

   ================================================================
Doug da Rocha Holmes            | Doug Holmes - Director
------------------------------- | Hungarian/American Friendship Society
Specialist in Azorean Genealogy | Website: www.dholmes.com/hafs.html
Website: www.dholmes.com        | (Specializing in Hungarian & Slovak genealogy
)
   ================================================================

At 09:36 PM 1/27/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak, while squabbling with Eva Balogh,
wrote:

<snip>
>Please, Eva, get a life.  You are nit-picking.  For the record, the answer
>to your question is, of course, no.  In my opinion, any given set of people
>(blind, blond, black, tall, lame, bald, white, short, homosexual
>heterosexual, red, fat, eunuch, etc., take your pick) includes all types
>and may or may not be appealing to someone.  Any of these sets may include
>individuals with whom I may find common ground on some topics.  My stated
>aversion is towards non-natural ("alternative") lifestiles.

You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, Ferenc.  But
then again, you're a right-wing ideologue/idiotlogue and I really don't
expect any illumination, on anything, from you.

Look, Ferenc, anything that happens on this earth is natural.  Period.  It
may be bizzar, unique, revolting, disgusting, charming, delightful, lawful,
unlawful, or whatever.  If it happens, or if it exists, then it is natural.
We don't know what "unnatural" is because the "unnatural" doesn't exist.
Nothing happens outside of nature.

The concept that something is "unnatural" is used mainly to refer to a
"minority" position or group.  And it's usually done in connection with
oppression, suppression, and denial of their human rights.

When you say something is unnatural all you're trying to do is hide behind
"scientific knowledge".  Unfortunately, scientific knowledge doesn't hide
your ignorance.

Joe Szalai

Dear Colleagues,

We have only 24 hours to use this opportunity to inform not only the American
public, but to influence the foreign policy of the New Administration. Please
use this window of opportunity and try to concince the leaders of the
Hungarian leaders in Romania to also take part.

Best regards: Bela Liptak

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
READ BUT DO NOT COPY MY LETTER!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX




The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
(e-mail: )

To the Editor,

I share the optimism of the OP ED article by Miklos Haraszti (1/27/97) and
agree that the Hungarian-Romanian treaty traded "land for ethnic rights." I
disagree, that this is a time for rejoicing or boasting about differences
between the Balkans and Central Europe.

This treaty is only a promise. Hungary carried out her part of the deal, she
traded land, - an area equal to her present size - for a promise. The promise
is that the over two million strong national community of Hungarians will get
their schools, institutions and church properties back, that their collective
human rights and cultural autonomy will be respected. If it happens, it will
start a process of reconciliation, which might replace the present Central
European power vacuum,  first with stability, and eventually might even lead
to a Danubian Confederation.

It is in our national interest to support and to become active participants
in this fragile process of great promise. It is in our interest, because it
will eliminate the need for sending troops, it is in our interest, because it
will preclude the flood of refugees, but most importantly, because it is the
right thing to do.









 Bela Liptak
January 28, 1997

Dear Colleagues,

We have only 24 hours to use this opportunity to inform not only the American
public, but to influence the foreign policy of the New Administration. Please
use this window of opportunity and try to concince the leaders of the
Hungarian leaders in Romania to also take part.

Best regards: Bela Liptak

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
READ BUT DO NOT COPY MY LETTER!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX




The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
(e-mail: )

To the Editor,

I share the optimism of the OP ED article by Miklos Haraszti (1/27/97) and
agree that the Hungarian-Romanian treaty traded "land for ethnic rights." I
disagree, that this is a time for rejoicing or boasting about differences
between the Balkans and Central Europe. 

This treaty is only a promise. Hungary carried out her part of the deal, she
traded land, - an area equal to her present size - for a promise. The promise
is that the over two million strong national community of Hungarians will get
their schools, institutions and church properties back, that their collective
human rights and cultural autonomy will be respected. If it happens, it will
start a process of reconciliation, which might replace the present Central
European power vacuum,  first with stability, and eventually might even lead
to a Danubian Confederation.

It is in our national interest to support and to become active participants
in this fragile process of great promise. It is in our interest, because it
will eliminate the need for sending troops, it is in our interest, because it
will preclude the flood of refugees, but most importantly, because it is the
right thing to do.









 Bela Liptak
January 28, 1997

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
    normal

Background:
    The Danube lawsuit  at the International Court in The Hague will 
open delayed in March, 1997. This lawsuit will adjudicate on 
the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia concerning the rerouting of 
the Danube onto Slovak territory. It is essential that we gain the 
support of world public opinion.  We have only 6 weeks, please help. 
    Krisztina Medonca has created a homepage for the protection of 
the Danube. We have to reach, that as much people as possible read it.

What to do:
  Please help in starting a chain letter. Send the attached letter to 
at least 5 of your friends. Such a chain letter, if started only by 
a thousand people, but resent by each recipient to their friends, 
could wake public opinion. PLEASE ACT!!


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Dear Friends,

an environmental activist has dedicated a section of her Web
site to the restoration of the famous Danube Wetlands, which were 
destroyed by the building of a disastrous power plant in Slovakia. 
Please take a moment to read the attached summary and visit the site. 

www.goodpoint.com/duna.htm

Summary: In the mid 80's Slovakia (the country formerly known as
half of Czechoslovakia) began construction on a series of dams aimed
at generating hydroelectricity.  The plan was originally based on a
1977 agreement with Hungary, requiring the diversion of the Danube,
the border river shared by the two countries. Considerable pressure
from the former Soviet Union influenced the agreement. When it became
apparent that the plan would result in catastrophic environmental
damage Hungary backed out of the agreement.  Slovakia went ahead and
illegally diverted the river, depriving Hungary of her natural
resource. The result is devastating environmental and economic damage
to Hungary, all for a mere 2-3% of Slovakia's electricity needs. In
February the International Court of Justice will begin hearings on
this case, the first environmental issue ever brought before the
Court. The ruling could have long term effects and set environmental
precedents around the globe.

Please help spread the word to friends and acqaintances who may
want to know about this important issue. PLEASE SEND 5 COPIES OF 
THIS MESSAGE IN 96 HOURS.

Thanks for your attention.

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
    normal

Background:
    The Danube lawsuit  at the International Court in The Hague will
open delayed in March, 1997. This lawsuit will adjudicate on
the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia concerning the rerouting of
the Danube onto Slovak territory. It is essential that we gain the
support of world public opinion.  We have only 6 weeks, please help.
    Krisztina Medonca has created a homepage for the protection of
the Danube. We have to reach, that as much people as possible read it.

What to do:
  Please help in starting a chain letter. Send the attached letter to
at least 5 of your friends. Such a chain letter, if started only by
a thousand people, but resent by each recipient to their friends,
could wake public opinion. PLEASE ACT!!


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Dear Friends,

an environmental activist has dedicated a section of her Web
site to the restoration of the famous Danube Wetlands, which were
destroyed by the building of a disastrous power plant in Slovakia.
Please take a moment to read the attached summary and visit the site.

www.goodpoint.com/duna.htm

Summary: In the mid 80's Slovakia (the country formerly known as
half of Czechoslovakia) began construction on a series of dams aimed
at generating hydroelectricity.  The plan was originally based on a
1977 agreement with Hungary, requiring the diversion of the Danube,
the border river shared by the two countries. Considerable pressure
from the former Soviet Union influenced the agreement. When it became
apparent that the plan would result in catastrophic environmental
damage Hungary backed out of the agreement.  Slovakia went ahead and
illegally diverted the river, depriving Hungary of her natural
resource. The result is devastating environmental and economic damage
to Hungary, all for a mere 2-3% of Slovakia's electricity needs. In
February the International Court of Justice will begin hearings on
this case, the first environmental issue ever brought before the
Court. The ruling could have long term effects and set environmental
precedents around the globe.

Please help spread the word to friends and acqaintances who may
want to know about this important issue. PLEASE SEND 5 COPIES OF
THIS MESSAGE IN 96 HOURS.

Thanks for your attention.

At 11:13 PM 1/27/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:

>>        What is wrong from the point of view of a ruler to try to bring some
>>uniformity into his realm?
>
>>From his point of view, nothing.  But then, following your line of reasoning
>you can also ask, what was wrong from Hitler's or Stalin's point of view of
>what they were doing?

       This is so unhistorical that it hurts.

>>        What is wrong with this? Do you think that the Hungarian
>>constitutional practice of election of the king was a good idea? Look what
>>happened to Poland!!
>
>Since you like to complain about the lack of democratic practices in Hungary,
>I would have expected you to come down on the side of elected monarchy, as
>opposed to accepting a foreign monarchy.

        Same goes for this. To compare twentieth-century democracy to feudal
privileges of the nobility is too ridiculous to contemplate.

>>And what is wrong with repeal of the jus resistendi
>>which basically meant that every time a bunch of nobles decided that the
>>king trampled on their privileges, they could take up arms and fight him. A
>>sure way of bringing chaos to the country and invite foreign intervention.
>>Again, see Poland!
>
>Why not England, whose Magna Charta, issued just seven years before the
>Golden Bull containing the ius resistendi?  Should that, too, have been
>repealed?  How about habeus corpus, which can also be invoked every time a
>bunch of criminals decide that their rights are trampled on ;-)

        There were several problems with it but most important it was
inpractical in seventeenth-century Europe. The Polish nobility which managed
to save its privileges against their elected kings also managed to dig a
grave for Poland. Every time there was election time in Poland there was
international intrigue and often war. Once elected the king's hands were
tied unable to raise even money for the defense of the country. The Sejm
became a joke where the liberum veto made the legislative work of the body
practically impossible.

        On the Eperjes/Presov military tribunal. To my best recollection the
charges were trumped-up charges in order to put an end to the Thokoly
Rebellion. And by the way, Thokoly himself was militarily expelled from
Transylvania not by Austrians but by Mihaly Apafi II, Prince of Transylvania
and his Transylvanian troops. By 1687 the rebellion came to an end with the
exception of the Castle of Munkacs/Mukacevo (today in the Ukraine), where
the wife of Thokoly, Ilona Zrinyi, was ready to defend the castle.

        As for Jeliko's:

>My note: Apparently just a little "electioneering" for the forthcoming diet.
>No wonder they voted the party line.>

        Just the opposite is true. It was the Pressburg Diet which put an
end to the atrocities and the king dispersed the military tribunal in
November. And by the way, a few months later Ilona Zrinyi, mother of Ferenc
Rakoczi II, accepted the peace offering of the king and handed over the
Castle of Munkacs.

Ferenc Novak:

>I have a feeling that you would not dismiss such atrocities in so cavalier a
>fashion if they had been committed by Hungarians.

        I hate to tell you but you are wrong. The military tribunal was not
composed by some Austrian monsters from Vienna: they were Hungarian and
German burghers, twelve in number, and they were all born and raised in Hungary
.

        Eva Balogh

In > "P. Magyar"
> writes:
>
>I am looking for a breeder of Vizslak in Hungary.  I would like to buy
one
>for import to the US.  If you know of a breeder, or there is a breeder
on
>this service, please contact me at the e-mail address below.
>
>My mother can read Hungarian and can translate for me if necessary.
>
>--
>Peggy Magyar

>
>

Just so you know, Vizslas are well known and bred in the United States,
I have ran into a number of them with non-Hungarian owners who are
proud to have and show this beautiful dog.  Call the AKC or any better
kennel club in your local area.

Charlie Vamossy

Eva balogh writes:
>        There were several problems with it but most important it was
>inpractical in seventeenth-century Europe. The Polish nobility which managed
>to save its privileges against their elected kings also managed to dig a
>grave for Poland. Every time there was election time in Poland there was
>international intrigue and often war. Once elected the king's hands were
>tied unable to raise even money for the defense of the country. The Sejm
>became a joke where the liberum veto made the legislative work of the body
>practically impossible.

Lets not mix apples and oranges. In Poland the individual Sejm members had a
veto like voting ability. Such requirement did not exist in any of the
Hungarian diets.


>
>        As for Jeliko's:
>
>>My note: Apparently just a little "electioneering" for the forthcoming diet.
>>No wonder they voted the party line.>
>
>        Just the opposite is true. It was the Pressburg Diet which put an
>end to the atrocities and the king dispersed the military tribunal in
>November. And by the way, a few months later Ilona Zrinyi, mother of Ferenc
>Rakoczi II, accepted the peace offering of the king and handed over the
>Castle of Munkacs.

The Diet met in October, by then the effects of Eperjes and Caraffa showed
what can happen. You are free to believe the opposite effect on any subject,
but just because it is your opinion, it does not automatically becomes a fact!

Regards,Jeliko.

PS in my last quote the "He" was Kollonich, thus not Leopold but his buddy.

This is an insert between the literature segments coming up regarding the
Habsburgs.

This is not from literature but my own opinions.

At various times in the history of Hungary, various Habsburg kings had
agreed to "everything" asked by the Hungarian nobility (not only the
magnates but the rest of the nobles also) just to have the chance to be
crowned kings. The coronation oath was part of such crowning. The issue
often is not whether the particular coronation oath was
socially acceptable (on any time period's basis) but whether the individual
Habsburg
swore the oath or not. Swearing that oath was not a requirement if one did
not want to be king. Basically a deal was made, the king accepted the
constraints of the job. (To my knowledge none of the Habsburgs were forced
to become Hungarian kings, it was their free will to want to be one.)

The problems generally arose, when AFTER becoming Hungarian kings, i.e
swearing the coronation oath, the particular Habsburg felt that whatever he
originally swore to can be abrogated if it was convenient to him. Sometimes
the derivation from the oath was in fact "socially" more progressive than
the laws he has sworn to uphold, while at other times it was blatant power
grabbing. The choice always existed, that the particular Habsburg felt so
socially responsible to all of the people of the Hungarian crown, that he
could have said, to the hell with the whole thing, I am not going to take
the oath because it maintains a socially unacceptable system, and if
consequently I loose the country so what. But generally sooner or later most
of them took the oath and most of them then proceeded to violate it.

Now, one can attribute these events solely to the ignoble nobles who were
looking out for their own interests, as is being done by some on this forum,
or one can say that in general, it is not appropriate to swear an oath (the
only duress being that otherwise you are not a king) and then proceed with
its violation. Apparently, even the otherwise most anti-Hungarian Habsburgs
(and the autocrats and even the more enlightened) were willing to take that
oath to become kings.

One can take the attitude that the poor well meaning Habsburg king was at
the mercy of the ignoble Hungarian nobles while at heart he had the best
interests of all the people of the Hungarian crown. But that bleeding hearth
interest was always sacrificed when accomodation with the ignoble Hungarian
nobles and smoother sailing for the near term
could be achieved. In fact the Habsburgs used the nationality issue in
Hungary mostly as a threat to the Hungarian ruling classes. If there ever
was a good example for the "divide and keep conquered" it was the Habsburg
rule in Hungary.

Did the Habsburgs have Hungarian fellow travelers in these affairs,
naturally they did, there are always those who were willing to follow the
kings example and have prostituted themselves for material gains. Generally,
such action resulted in lands, titles, power and money. (A lot of people,
all over the world are still doing that today.)

I do not expect that the Habsburgs should have sacrificed their interest and
kept Hungary's interests in mind, but when they swore the coronation oath,
basically that is what was sworn to. At the same time, in fact almost
exclusively, the Habsburg interests came first regardless of what was sworn
to in the coronation oath. Thus, the conflicts were also almost continuous
with a lot of behind the scene manuvering to countermand the oath. The
Habsburg times from the beginning to the end were a conflict between what
was formally sworn to and what the Habsburgs could get away with. A conflict
between the rulers of a realm and the largest minority in the empire,
because generally no nationality was in majority for the territories ruled
by the Habsburgs. (Please do not write back that the Slavs were in majority,
you can see the brotherly love, even today, exhibited by individual Slavic
folks who resided within the erstwhile lands)

At the same time, I have grave doubts that having solely a Hungarian monarch
and giving greater autonomy to the nationalities of Hungary proper, would
have preserved historical Hungary's boundaries. The nationalism, developing
at the end of the last century, would have taken its toll anyway. That the
dismantling probaly could have been of lesser magnitude, however, is very
likely. Thus, one should not solely blame the Habsburgs, but keeping them
blameless and claimimg that only the ignoble Hungarian nobles were at fault
is equally unteneble. My claims that the Habsburgs were also to be blamed
for the events is not a white wash of the stupidities committed by others. I
generally, wade into the discussion when someone tries to ascribe only one
sided blame.

Regards,Jeliko

Bela Liptak wrote:

> We have only 24 hours to use this opportunity to inform not only the American
> public, but to influence the foreign policy of the New Administration. Please
> use this window of opportunity and try to concince the leaders of the
> Hungarian leaders in Romania to also take part.

[excerpts from a letter to the editor of the New York Times]

> I share the optimism of the OP ED article by Miklos Haraszti (1/27/97) and
> agree that the Hungarian-Romanian treaty traded "land for ethnic rights."
> ...
> This treaty is only a promise. Hungary carried out her part of the deal, she
> traded land, - an area equal to her present size - for a promise.

With due respect for Prof. Liptak's untiring efforts in the Hungarian Lobby,
I think that the claim that "Hungary ... traded land" is quite counter-
productive.

Such representation of the treaty (any treaty with Hungary's neighbours) will
only confirm that Hungarian sentiment is still firmly stuck in the past and
at heart Hungarians are unrepentant revanchists.

For, by international law, the territories in question belong to Hungary's
neighbours.  Hence, talking about them as an implied property of Hungary,
something that Hungary could trade, is the very least legally nonsense.
As such, it cuts no ice with third governments sick of ethnic squabbling
on the Balkans and thereabouts.  It is totally lost on people in third
countries who know nothing about relevant history and only perceive a steady
whine of anachronism.  It is also highly inflammatory for Hungary's
neighbours where there are quite a few people eagerly waiting for further
proof of revanchist Hungarian sentiment.

Now the latter can cite another perceived proof: they were given a free kick.
Hungarians have just traded favourable international perception for no gain
at all, just to indulge in traditional self-righteous Hungarian rhetoric.

My view is that instead of never-ending hints and explicit statements of
some sort of "right" by the Hungarian state to territories stripped off her
77 years ago, the emphasis ought to be on the world's best practice in
approaching the problems of ethnic minorities.  The example of South Tyrol
has been occasionally raised by me and others, just to sink without a trace
immediately.

Given that both Austria and Italy are EU members, and both Hungary and her
neighbours are clamouring to get into the EU, perhaps South Tyrol should
be the object of Hungarian PR efforts.  Some sort of Austro-Italian
involvement, under the aegis of the EU, in the issue of the conditions of
Hungarian ethnic minorities would set better parameters and provide a greater
incentive than a US administration that is fundamentally uninterested in
ethnic rights and whose objectives in the region are limited to preventing
armed conflict and facilitating US influence-buying.  It would offer Italy
and Austria an opportunity of grand-standing within the EU and internationally,
and it is likely to attract some sympathetic interest, perhaps even support,
from Russia that is in a situation similar to Hungary's.

Now, I understand that getting such a scheme going is the job of the
Hungarian government and not of the USAian Hungarian Lobby.  What I would
like to see, however, is the USAian Hungarian Lobby leaving the door open to
approaching the issue of Hungarian ethnic minorities with arguments somewhat
more modern and positive than ritualistic hints, or references, to Trianon.

George Antony

At 02:02 AM 1/27/97 GMT, Sam Stowe, in "Re: Galbraight and Soros" wrote:

<snip>
>And this would be, ta da! -- bullshit! For all your mouth, you haven't yet
>come up with any concrete observations on how your own beliefs could be
>effected on a widespread basis. You have to have all the answers; you
>can't stand to admit that you don't. Ambiguity is your worst nightmare.
>That and a wobbly-legged kitchen table.

Sorry to disillusion you, Sam, but I don't have all the answers.  You do.
Or so it seems.

The ideology that dominates our age is not democracy, socialism, capitalism,
or communism, but "corporatism".  By corporatism I mean the development of
large groups - not just big business and corporations but bureaucracies and
interest groups of all kinds - that try to impose their agenda on society
and subvert the loyalties of their members from the common good.

Corporatism reduces civilization to the sum of its corporations, to the sum
of its interests.  And in the process it becomes a profound denial of
everything that is actually positive in our history.

Corporatism everywhere is fundamentally anti-democratic.  Its drive to
dominance produces weak governments, frayed social safety nets, an ignorant
workforce, a degraded environment, and a culture in which the individual is
defined as a consumer or an employee.  Even in government offices citizens
are now described as "customers" or "clients".  All of these are stages in
the destruction of civilization.

And why have we been reduced to being merely customers or clients?  The
reason is because we've accepted that the basic language of public discourse
is a language which denies the possibility of the public good.  A language
which de-legitimizes the democratic state and the role of citizens.  And if
you accept that language, and it seems that most people do, then you are in
effect committing suicide.

If you, as a citizen, allow your government to talk to you about customer
services, then it's all over.  There's nothing left to discuss.  You
shouldn't even bother to vote.  Because if you can't get the language right,
if you allow them to describe you and the public interest in a language
which denies the public interest, the debate is over.

Getting the language right is as critical as finding the time to participate
as a citizen.  Democracy is language and participation.

Language and participation are tied to the idea of rejecting false
individualism.  The idea that reigns today - that individualism is walking
away from society as opposed to participating in society.  That
individualism is the freedom not to be there - to go on holiday, to go
skiing - when in fact individualism is about participation and obligation.
The more you participate, the more you're an individual.

That's how a real democracy, a humanist democracy is built.  Perhaps you're
more interested in the Super Bowl.

I'm sorry if the above ideas seem a bit disjointed.

Joe Szalai

Democracy, n.:
        A government of the masses.  Authority derived through mass
meeting or any other form of direct expression.  Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,
whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion,
prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
                -- U. S. Army Training Manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932),
                   since withdrawn.

At 03:40 PM 1/28/97 -0500, Jeliko wrote:

>This is an insert between the literature segments coming up regarding the
>Habsburgs.
>
>This is not from literature but my own opinions.
>
>At various times in the history of Hungary, various Habsburg kings had
>agreed to "everything" asked by the Hungarian nobility (not only the
>magnates but the rest of the nobles also) just to have the chance to be
>crowned kings. The coronation oath was part of such crowning. The issue
>often is not whether the particular coronation oath was
>socially acceptable (on any time period's basis) but whether the individual
>Habsburg
>swore the oath or not. Swearing that oath was not a requirement if one did
>not want to be king. Basically a deal was made, the king accepted the
>constraints of the job. (To my knowledge none of the Habsburgs were forced
>to become Hungarian kings, it was their free will to want to be one.)

        I think that the question of the coronation oath is a rather
complicated one because the text of the coronation oath had changed over
time. In fact, a whole monograph was written on that very subject in 1924:
Emma Bartoniek, *A koronazasi esku fejlodese." Although I have not been able
to locate the full texts of these "diplomas" as they were called, I did
manage to find descriptions of them. At least in the 15th century the first
act of the coronation ceremony was the "acclamatio," by a large body of the
nobility  and the common folks gathered for the occasion. The archbishop of
Esztergom, or in his absence, the archbishop of Kalocsa anointed the king
and placed the Crown of St. Stephen on his head. At this point he took the
oath which was "the guarantee of lawful and humane exercise of absolute
power." I very much doubt though that the text of the oath was very specific
either in the 15th century or later. Most likely it was quite general and it
mentioned the rights and privileges of the nation (meaning the nobility) and
the constitution. And we all know that the interpretation of even written
constitutions is not always clear-cut and therefore, I am almost certain
that the Hungarian nobility had a very different interpretation of its own
privileges and the constitution from that of the king and his advisors.

>The choice always existed, that the particular Habsburg felt so
>socially responsible to all of the people of the Hungarian crown, that he
>could have said, to the hell with the whole thing, I am not going to take
>the oath because it maintains a socially unacceptable system, and if
>consequently I loose the country so what. But generally sooner or later most
>of them took the oath and most of them then proceeded to violate it.

        As far as I know there was only one who didn't: Joseph II.

>Now, one can attribute these events solely to the ignoble nobles who were
>looking out for their own interests, as is being done by some on this forum,
>or one can say that in general, it is not appropriate to swear an oath (the
>only duress being that otherwise you are not a king) and then proceed with
>its violation. Apparently, even the otherwise most anti-Hungarian Habsburgs
>(and the autocrats and even the more enlightened) were willing to take that
>oath to become kings.

        The constitutional changes which occurred in the seventeenth century
(under Leopold) were actually voted on by the Diet. For example, the Diet
voted for a law of succession based on the concept of the oldest son. Thus,
the Diet basically gave up the idea of free election within the House of
Habsburg (1688:2. tc.) However, at the same time, the Diet managed to make
sure that the king should be dutifully crowned, and give a "diploma
inaugurale" (kira'lyi hitleve'l in Hungarian) on which he had to swear. That
swearing on the diploma is called the coronation oath.

        The nobility's privileges were embodied in the Tripartitum
(specifically in its first chapter. They were the following: (1) A nobleman
couldn't be arrested without a warrant or lawful judgment with the exception
of theft, robbery, arson or rape; (2) A nobleman cannot be subjugated to
anyone else except his lawfully crowned king; (3) A nobleman is exempt of
any taxation and services; and (4) the nobles could use the ius resistendi
(right of which was established in the Golden Bull). With the exception of
the fourth privilege which the Diet gave up during 1687-88, the nobles
managed to keep all their privileges during the centuries of Habsburg rule.

        Hungary's separate status, although not completely, but in large
measure also remained intact due to the tenacity of the country's nobility.
Whether it was for the good of the country or not in the long run, is a
question on which we Hungarians obviously don't see eye to eye. The great
majority, Jeliko included, clings to the idea that the nobles' interests
were identical the country's interests. I am on the other side. I see the
Hungarian nobility's role in a less favorable light. I see that often it was
the ruler who protected the the commoners--the serfs--from the nobility
against the "nation's" wishes. Some of this protection was done actually
"unconstitutionally." As I said earlier, the Czech nobility was crushed at
the beginning of the seventeenth century; the Hungarian nobility was
obviously stronger and the Habsburgs never managed to crush them completely.
Time and time again there were repeated compromises between the crown and
the nobility and thus the Hungarian nobility survived with all its political
power until 1945!! Was it a good thing? I am not sure.

        Eva Balogh

Dear Mr. Anthony;


the international treaties are worth only as much, as the price of paper
they are printed on. Since - contrary to popular believe - there is no
"international law" as such, the only law is the force of arms, no matter,
how you slice it.
Besides; treaties, agreements are not valid, if they are signed under duress.
Hungary was threatened by war implicitly by Great Britain, France,
Yugoslavia Romania and Czechoslovakia  in 1920. She had to sign the Trianon
dictat.  Again, in 1947, the Soviet troops were occupying the country,
Romanian, Czechoslovak and Yugoslav armed forces were ready to jump. Both
treaties (dictates) were signed under duress, consequently they are  null
and void, except for the arms which are enforcing them.

However, facts are facts. We  can not hope for the peaceful  alterations of
the borders. I agree with you, our only hope is the "South Tyrol
solution", not to mention the Aaland Islands, the Catalan, the Basque, the
Swiss, Gagauz (Moldavia) solutions. But, we will never get it simply by
asking for it. You have to raise the stakes. Otherwise you have no
bargaining chips in your hands.

This is my letter to the Times, the one they will never print:

To the Editor,
I do not quite share the optimism of the OP ED article by Miklos Haraszti
(1/27/97). The Hungarian government signed the "Basic Treaty" under
pressure.
They have traded,  it is stated, "land for ethnic rights". Actually, they
have traded land for nothing. The successive Romanian governments never
fulfilled a single  international treaty which was not  hundred percent in
their favor. They will sign anything, to get off the hook, but it would
take an army to make them  stick to it.
If  the present  Romanian government  really wants to make "concessions" to
the  indigenous Hungarian minority, they will be swept out of power by the
fascist/socialist majority. It is only a matter of time. The Constitution
(same as in Slovakia) is based on the idea of "Nation State". It excludes
the possibility of fair treatment of national minorities.

The problem  was swept under the rug again. It could only  be solved by
rearranging the borders,  in such a way, that an equal number of minorities
will live on both sides of the border.  Then, and only then,  would it be
possible the economic, cultural, political and military integration of the
region with Western Europe.  But, do you really want it?

S.J. Magyarody

Eva Balogh wrote:
> the Hungarian nobility survived with all its political
> power until 1945!!

I think some qualification would be in order.  While the aristocracy did
retain much of its political power, the same cannot be said of the lowest
rung of nobility (literally translated from the Hungarian, the 'small' or
'common' nobility, perhaps the English squire is closest ?) beyond the
right to prance about in funny clothes on special occasions.

> Was it a good thing? I am not sure.

I am sure that it was not.  It has distorted the country's political direction
and limited its political elite, in addition to the economic and social
distortions caused by the latifundia.

Specifically, the dilettantism of Hungarian leaders post WWI has cost the
country dearly in such cases as the peace negotiations and the relinquishing
of power to the Communists.

George Antony